Subject Index
| Publication Date | 01 October 2011 |
| DOI | 10.1350/ijep.2011.15.4.376 |
| Date | 01 October 2011 |
| Subject | Subject Index |
SUBJECT INDEX
Aboriginal customarylaw . . . . . . 9–13,18–20, 25
absent witnesses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101–103
absolute liabilityoffences . . . . 183,189, 191–192
abuse of process
stayof proceedings and . . . . . . . . . . . 268–271
accountants
legal professionalprivilege (LPP) . . . . . 81–82
accuracy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131–141
admissibility of evidence
confessions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175–176
exclusionary rule. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62–69
expert evidence
cases ofsexual offending. . . . . . . 333–336
competency ofexpert . . . . . . . . . .371–373
customary law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8,11–14
reasoning behind . . . . . . . . . . . . . 368–371
reliability ofevidence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 273
hearsay evidence
proof ofcustomary law . . . . . . 7–8,11–14
right ofconfrontation . . 93–116,357–360
pre-contractnegotiations . . . . . . . . . 232–244
previous consistentstatements . . . . 178–179
previous convictions . . . . . 311–337,328–332
propensity evidence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 361–368
recent complaintevidence . . . . . . . . 325–328
scientific evidence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207–231
sexual historyevidence . . . . . . . . . . . 320–325
unlawfullyobtained evidence . . . . . . . 82–84
adverse inference . . . . . . . . . . . 157,193, 195–197
alternative ways. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .314–320
anonymous witnesses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101–103
anti-social behaviourorders (ASBOs) . . 183–184,
203–205
appointment ofjudges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
ASBOs (anti-socialbehaviour orders) . . 183–184,
203–205
Australia
admissibility ofexpert evidence . . . 368–371
codification oflaw of evidence . . . . . . . . . 274
coronial jurisdiction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
discovery ofdocuments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 374
forensic samples. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .87
jury selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
pre-trial publicity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84–85
proof ofcustomary law. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1–25
propensity evidence. . . . . . 264–266,366–368
vulnerable witnesses . . . . . . . . . . . . . 274–275
bad characterevidence . . . . . . 173–176, 328–332
see also propensity evidence
Bayesianism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135
best evidencerule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155–156
beyond reasonable doubt see standard of proof
bias
scientific evidence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207–231
blind expertise. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207–231
breaches ofprocedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149–150
burden of proof
presumptionof innocence . . . . . . . . 181–206
Canada
appointing judges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
DNA profiles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
parole evidencerule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
post-offence evidence. . . . . . . . . . . . . 261–264
right toconsult a lawyer. . . . . . . . . . . . . 70–74
wearingof niqab . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74–79
capacity, mental
retention and destruction of forensic
samples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
unfitness toplead . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
see also vulnerable witnesses
caution, police
as evidenceof bad character . . . . . . . 173–176
CCTV images. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .52–53, 58–59
civil orders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 184,202–205
CODIS (CombinedDNA Index System). . 289,307
collection ofDNA. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 285–290
collection ofphysical evidence . . . . . . . . . . 37–38
Combined DNAIndex System (CODIS). . 289,307
common knowledgerule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
communitarianism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 295–296
comparative analysisexamination . . . . . . . . . 35
confessions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .175–176
confrontation, rightof . . . . . . . 93–116, 357–360
see also cross-examination
constitutional rights
improperlyobtained evidence and . . . 62–69
non-conviction DNA databases and . 281–310
presumptionof innocence . . . . . . . . 181–206
right ofconfrontation . . . . 102,106, 109,111,
357–360
right ofrepresentation. . . . . . . . . . . . 271–272
wearingof niqab and. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74–79
contextualism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129
contract, law of
without prejudicenegotiations . . . . 232–244
control orders. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 184
conversion, religious. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 274
convictions, previous
disclosure in cases of sexual offending
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 311–337,328–332
coronial jurisdiction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .87
corroboration rule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158–160
counsel, rightto . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70–74, 271–272
crime scenephotography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .44–47
376 THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF EVIDENCE & PROOF
THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF EVIDENCE & PROOF 377
SUBJECT INDEX
cross-examination
right ofconfrontation . . . . . 93–116,357–360
wearingof niqab by witness. . . . . . . . . . 74–79
customary law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1–25
deadlines, procedural. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150–151
delay
sexual abusecases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200–202
demeanour evidence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 261–264
deprivation ofliberty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 184
detention
right ofaccess to legaladvice. . . . . . . . . 70–74
disclosure
foreign intelligencematerial . . . . . . 338–356
discovery ofdocuments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 374
DNA evidence
collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 285–290
Low CopyNumber (LCN) analysis. . . 161–169,
245–257
non-conviction databases . . . . . . . . . 281–310
regulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
reliability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 284–285
retention. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 285–290
due process
disclosure of foreign intelligence material
and. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 338–356
see also fair trial
duty of care
expert witnesses. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 258
emergencies, ongoing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 357–360
empirical analysisexamination . . . . . . . . . 34–35
entrepreneurs, policy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 298–301
epistemic accounts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117–143
excited utterances. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 357–360
exclusionary rule. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62–69
expert witnesses
admissibility ofevidence . . . . . . . . . . 8,11–14,
368–371
blind expertisesolution . . . . . . . . . . . 207–231
cases ofsexual offending . . . . . . . . . .333–336
competency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 371–373
immunity fromsuit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 258–261
reliability ofevidence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 273
fair trial
alternativeways of giving evidence and . 315
delayin sexual abuse casesand . . . . 200–202
jury representationand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 267
pre-trial publicityand. . . . . . . . . . . 84–85, 172
right ofconfrontation and. . . . . . . . . . 93–116
see also due process
FFAs (forwardfreight agreements). . . . . 240–243
fingerprint evidence . . . . . . . . . . 62–69, 371–373
footwear impressionevidence . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
foreign intelligencematerial . . . . . . . . . 338–356
forensic evidence
photographicevidence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26–61
retention anddestruction of samples . . . . 87
see also DNA evidence; fingerprint evidence;
scientific evidence
Forensic ScienceServices (FSS). . . . . . . . . . . . . 306
formalities, pointless . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153–155
forward freightagreements (FFAs). . . . . 240–243
freedom of religion
wearingof niqab and. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74–79
FSS (ForensicScience Services). . . . . . . . . . . . . 306
guilty pleadiscount . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193–195
hearsay evidence
proof ofcustomary law . . . . . . . . . .7–8, 11–14
right ofconfrontation . . . . . 93–116,357–360
Hindu marriage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 274
Hong Kong
presumptionagainst boy under14. . 273–274
hostile witnesses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176
human rights
access tolegal advice. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70–74
deprivation ofliberty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 184
legal professionalprivilege (LPP) and. . . . . 82
non-conviction DNA databases and . 281–310
silence, rightto . . . . 70–74, 157, 193,195–197
wearingof niqab . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74–79
imaging technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26–61
immunity fromsuit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 258–261
improperly obtainedevidence . . . . 62–69, 82–84
in-house lawyers
legal professionalprivilege (LPP) . . . . . 79–81
incapacity, mental
retention and destruction of forensic
samples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
unfitness toplead . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
see also vulnerable witnesses
India
hostile witnesses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176
proof ofreligious conversion. . . . . . . . . . . 274
right ofrepresentation. . . . . . . . . . . . 271–272
indigenous people
proof ofcustomary law. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1–25
individualised evidence
statisticalevidence compared . . . . . . 117–143
innocence, presumptionof . . . . . . . . . . . 181–206
internet research. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170–173
interpretation of contract
without prejudicenegotiations . . . . 232–244
interpretative examinations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .35
intimidation ofwitnesses . . . . . . . . . . . . 108–109
Ireland
exclusionary rule. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62–69
internet researchby juries. . . . . . . . . 170–172
presumptionof innocence . . . . . . . . 181–206
Jersey
stayof proceedings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 268–271
journalists
reporting ofproceedings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173
judges, appointmentof. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
To continue reading
Request your trial